How many cabinet ministers will vote against gay marriage?

Faith minister Sayeeda Warsi, who attends cabinet, is the latest figure to raise concerns over the policy.

Ed Miliband declared earlier this week that the shadow cabinet was "united in supporting same sex marriage" but David Cameron can't say the same of his top team. Environment Secretary Owen Paterson, a renowned social conservative, has said that he does not support the move and Welsh Secretary David Jones has indicated that he will vote against it while refusing to say why. Defence Secretary Philip Hammond does not oppose equal marriage as such but has suggested that its introduction should be delayed to allow the government to "focus on the things that matter".

Today it emerged that Sayeeda Warsi, who attends cabinet as minister for faith communities and as a senior Foreign Office minister, also has concerns over the policy. In a letter leaked to the Daily Mail, Warsi asked equalities minister Maria Miller, who is piloting the legislation through parliament, to provide "clarity" on "how the legislation will protect religious freedom". She added: "What legal protection will churches and other places of worship be afforded from challenges if they refuse to undertake same-sex marriage? What legal support will be afforded to churches and others places of worship if they're challenged individually or as an organisation?"

Warsi's letter, sent after Miller's statement to MPs, is significant because it shows that even the "quadruple lock" preventing religious institutions being forced to marry same-sex couples has not been enough to assuage Tory concerns. The lock will ensure that neither religious organisations nor individual ministers will be compelled to hold the weddings on their premises, that no discrimination claims can be brought against them for refusing to marry a same-sex couple, and that religious organisations who do support equal marriage will be required to formally opt-in. In addition, the Church of England and Church in Wales will be banned from hosting same-sex weddings without new primary legislation. Some Tories are pushing for the latter measure to apply to all religious organisations.

Should Conservative cabinet ministers vote against equal marriage, it will not qualify as a rebellion because David Cameron has offered a free vote to his MPs. Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg have since followed suit after the government agreed to allow religious organisations to hold same-sex marriages.

Faith minister Sayeeda Warsi asked equalities minister Maria Miller to offer greater "clarity" on gay marriage. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Show Hide image

What Donald Trump could learn from Ronald Reagan

Reagan’s candidacy was built on more than his celebrity. Trump not only lacks experience as an elected official, he isn’t part of any organised political movement.

“No one remembers who came in second.” That wisdom, frequently dispensed by the US presidential candidate Donald Trump, came back to haunt him this week. Trump’s loss in the Iowa Republican caucuses to the Texas senator Ted Cruz, barely beating Senator Marco Rubio of Florida for second place, was the first crack in a campaign that has defied all expectations.

It has been a campaign built on Trump’s celebrity. Over the past eight months, his broad name recognition, larger-than-life personality and media savvy have produced a theatrical candidacy that has transfixed even those he repels. The question now is whether that celebrity will be enough – whether a man so obsessed with being “Number One” can bounce back from defeat.

Iowa isn’t everything, after all. It didn’t back the eventual Republican nominee in 2008 or 2012. Nor, for that matter, in 1980, when another “celebrity” candidate was in the mix. That was the year Iowa picked George H W Bush over Ronald Reagan – the former actor whom seasoned journalists dismissed as much for his right-wing views as for his “B-movie” repertoire. But Reagan regrouped, romped to victory in the New Hampshire primary and rode a wave of popular support all the way to the White House.

Trump might hope to replicate that success and has made a point of pushing the Reagan analogy more generally. Yet it is a comparison that exposes Trump’s weaknesses and his strengths.

Both men were once Democrats who came later in life to the Republican Party, projecting toughness, certainty and unabashed patriotism. Trump has even adopted Reagan’s 1980 campaign promise to “make America great again”. Like Reagan, he has shown he can appeal to evangelicals despite question marks over his religious conviction and divorces. In his ability to deflect criticism, too, Trump has shown himself as adept as Reagan – if by defiance rather than by charm – and redefined what it means to be “Teflon” in the age of Twitter.

That defiance, however, points to a huge difference in tone between Reagan’s candidacy and Trump’s. Reagan’s vision was a positive, optimistic one, even as he castigated “big government” and the perceived decline of US power. Reagan’s America was meant to be “a city upon a hill” offering a shining example of liberty to the world – in rhetoric at least. Trump’s vision is of an America closed off from the world. His rhetoric invokes fear as often as it does freedom.

On a personal level, Reagan avoided the vituperative attacks that have been the hallmark of Trump’s campaign, even as he took on the then“establishment” of the Republican Party – a moderate, urban, east coast elite. In his first run for the nomination, in 1976, Reagan even challenged an incumbent Republican president, Gerald Ford, and came close to defeating him. But he mounted the challenge on policy grounds, advocating the so-called “Eleventh Commandment”: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Trump, as the TV debates between the Republican presidential candidates made clear, does not subscribe to the same precept.

More importantly, Reagan in 1976 and 1980 was the leader of a resurgent conservative movement, with deep wells of political experience. He had been president of the Screen Actors Guild in the late 1940s, waging a campaign to root out communist infiltrators. He had gone on to work for General Electric in the 1950s as a TV pitchman and after-dinner speaker, honing a business message that resonated beyond the “rubber chicken circuit”.

In 1964 he grabbed headlines with a televised speech on behalf of the Republican presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater – a bright spot in Goldwater’s otherwise ignominious campaign. Two years later he was elected governor of California – serving for eight years as chief executive of the nation’s most populous state. He built a conservative record on welfare reform, law and order, and business regulation that he pushed on to the federal agenda when he ran for president.

All this is to say that Reagan’s candidacy was built on more than his celebrity. By contrast, Trump not only lacks experience as an elected official, he isn’t part of any organised political movement – which enhanced his “outsider” status, perhaps, but not his ground game. So far, he has run on opportunism, tapping in to popular frustration, channelled through a media megaphone.

In Iowa, this wasn’t enough. To win the nomination he will have to do much more to build his organisation. He will be hoping that in the primaries to come, voters do remember who came in second. 

This article first appeared in the 05 February 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Putin's war